Open Space being badly defined

[Michael M Pannwitz]

Dear Holger, I find myself repeating things, too! Maybe its old age (not 
in your case, of course)...or whatever.
To me, the core of OST is about selforganisation. Its a pretty neat 
technology to have time and space for selforganisation unfold more than 
in any other setting I know of. In fact, its the only technology that 
has that as its core process.
There are a number of processes, methods, etc. for participation, 
democratization, communication,problem solving, mediation, 
collaboration, cooperation, community building...all fine stuff.
But to me that is not what OST is about, it simply (and uniquely in my 
experience)is a way to set the stage for selforganisation to unfold. 
Granted, we do observe all kinds of wonderful stuff in os events such as 
productive work at an enormous level, hugging, coniving, networking, 
solving nasty problems, falling in love, making music, dancing, 
laughing, closing down companies, whining, sleeping, participant driven 
control, napping.....whatever it is that grows, develops, emerges out of 
selforganizing settings.
But Open Space Technology is not a tool for participation as little as 
it is one for napping or any of the other great things that do occour in 
an os setting. It simply serves to make more time and space for 
selforganisation.
And that is what informs my practice as a facilitator of such 
events...and has gradually made it easier for me to let go, focus on 
being present and invisible, not help sponsors to solve their problems 
(see note of Harrison on "enabling"), incorporate training opportunities 
for newcomers to my facilitation teams (see note by Chris on doing 
nothing at the bulletin board)...and keeping working on training designs 
without inputs by the trainer...
So, I find defining open space a pretty simple affair by sticking to the 
selforganisation core. All the other stuff (napping, participation, etc) 
I call sideeffects, can happen, might happen, has been seen to happen 
but that is not an intention. Selforganisation is unattached to a 
specific outcome.
Greetings from Lichterfelde
mmp


Holger Nauheimer (Change Facilitation) wrote:
> Chris,
> 
> you said:
> 
> "In the world of self-organizing systems and evolutionary processes what
> matters is variety and diversity.  Things only get better when millions of
> experiments are underway.  From those experiments come the mutations and
> modifications that help create the next level.  It's how Open Space emerged,
> and it's how it will disappear in good time too."
> 
> I draw my hat in admiration - this was the most intelligent thing I heared
> somebody saying about whether or not Open Space Technology must be used in
> its original format (which we all love, and usually fight for) or not.
> Regularly, I have been asking the provocative question: "OST - so, what's
> next?" Not that I want OST to disappear. But we can't possibly assume that
> it will be around for the next 1300 years. Maybe it will: Robert Jungk's
> Zukunftswerkstatt still seems to be around, and that tells something about
> stickyness of methodologies :) . 
> 
> It reminds me of the question, "After John Cage, can there be any other new
> music?" John Cage produced the famous piece 4'33" in the early nineties -
> four and a half minute of pure silence:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJagb7hL0E. But of course, there is new
> music, even if it will be difficult to beat the radicalism of John Cage.
> 
> OST might probably remain the purest "technology of participation", as John
> Cage's 4'33". I wouldn't know how to simplify self-organized meetings. But
> as much as we love OST, people need to experiment in order to find out which
> borders to cross or to stretch. We (the OST aficionados) are in a way the
> keepers of The Holy Grail of OST and we need to be. But then, we mustn't be
> to change resistant. Sometimes, OST does not solve the issues of a client,
> even if more participation and collaboration is at stake.
> 
> I repeat myself: if more and more groups who have different rituals and
> cultures find a way to host meetings with a self-organization component, I
> think we (and all the other Sandras, Marvins, Juanitas, Davids, etc.) can
> proudly say, "we were part of a global paradigm shift in collaboration."
> 
> Some people will like OST better, and some not. I don't care. I love it as I
> love John Cage.
> 
> Holger
> 
> *
> *
> ==========================================================
> OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
> ------------------------------
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
> view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
> http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
> 
> To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
> http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
> 

-- 
Michael M Pannwitz, boscop eg
Draisweg 1, 12209 Berlin, Germany
++49-30-772 8000
mmpanne at boscop.org
www.boscop.org


Check out the Open Space World Map presently showing 459 resident Open 
Space Workers in 73 countries working in a total of 139 countries worldwide
Have a look:
www.openspaceworldmap.org

*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html

To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist